Paul_D_North_Jr rrnut282: mudchicken: ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say. Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf? Heck, that could be anyplace west of Toledo, and east of St. Louis -or maybe Kansas City . . . - Paul North.
rrnut282: mudchicken: ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say. Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf?
ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say.
Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf?
Heck, that could be anyplace west of Toledo, and east of St. Louis -or maybe Kansas City . . .
- Paul North.
rrnut282 mudchicken: ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say. Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf?
You apparently are a lawyer which I am not. I used the therm "we" in referring to the whole agency not the board. The claims are handled by our legal department which consists of about 12 lawyers. They do use claims adjusters. I had no intention of going into the complete legal formalities of how a case would progress through the system. I only wanted to point out that false claims do exist and we were working to limit the exposure of the agency. We do have limited immunity under state law however the immunity only is good until the next court case as any lawyer will tell you. We are not a small agency. Our service area covers 13 cities and we operate 100 miles of light rail, 35 miles of commuter rail, paratransit services, HOV lanes, and 1000 buses.
Regarding the famous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, it appears that the final reward wasn't in the millions. http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html
ccltrains If you read my post you would see that I said we would evaluate all claims and if they had merit we would quickly pay and offer our sincere apologies. If the case was without merit we would pursue all legal defenses at our disposal. .... See my post this morning about faked claims we recorded on video. Almost all of the $5000 claims are filed in small claims court where the filing fees are about $50. ... Soft tissue damage is very difficult to prove or disprove.
If you read my post you would see that I said we would evaluate all claims and if they had merit we would quickly pay and offer our sincere apologies. If the case was without merit we would pursue all legal defenses at our disposal. .... See my post this morning about faked claims we recorded on video.
Almost all of the $5000 claims are filed in small claims court where the filing fees are about $50. ...
Soft tissue damage is very difficult to prove or disprove.
Off list, I am advised that these are interesting points:
1) "Discovery" does not occur prior to litigation, so how a claim might be, before it can be properly investigated, deemed " without merit," is a little bit of the cart before the horse.
2) The "faked claims video" is an interesting exercise for a public agency to undertake. Done next to a housing project? Why was public money spent on that? It can't be used in any individual court case; it can't be publicized without accusations of attempting to "taint the jury pool" against legitimate claims (and that looks to be the purpose), and it permits lawyers then to seek a change of venue -- creating an expensive proposition for the defense. Indeed, if something like that aired during a pending case -- sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. So, they set up this whole thing to video ... for their own private amusement? At taxpayer expense?
3) As courts of "limited jurisdiction," most small claims courts don't have jurisdiction over personal injury cases. I suppose they could where you were, but it raises a question since usually that can't happen. [Edit: I am further advised that, at least in most jurisdictions -- and they do vary -- the purpose of small claims courts generally is to permit litigants to file without a lawyer; waiving a jury. If you use a lawyer, it can't be filed in small claims courts].
4) "Slip and Fall" cases are generally not "soft tissue" cases of the type generally referred to as "soft tissue injury" cases which are most typically automobile "rear enders," where the most common injury, "whiplash" has no external symptoms. "Slip and Fall" nearly always have external symptoms, ranging from bruising to contusions, sprains, to broken bones, fractured skulls, concussions and even paralysis. These are whole different categories of cases.
5) I did not once see the words "Claims Adjuster" used in the posts, which is a position created about 150 years ago for Class I's, including those with urban transit responsibilities, and which had for good and well-known reasons adopted policies of paying legitimate claims and resisting illegitimate claims without the necessity of spending good money to produce a video that showed that people sometimes make things up. Really, was this "Headline News" to somebody on your Board of Directors? You spent how much taxpayer money to educate this board on the obvious?
6) The very existence of a video like this is discoverable in a litigated case. It goes to "bad faith" reasons why a entity might not settle a legitimate claim promptly and fairly. It would be explosive material in the hands of a skilled lawyer attempting to prove "bad faith" settlement practices. No corporate counsel worth his salt would advise that something like this be done; it's amateur, and because of that, legally lethal. The liability on that could be enormous; far out of proportion to the underlying damages in a case. This is nearly "McDonald's Class Dumb" to produce this kind of "testimony" that can be used at trial as evidence of "attitude" toward injured parties.
7) I did see the words, "we would evaluate ...," which makes it sound like a very busy Board of Directors, but that just doesn't sound right; most people familiar with these things would refer to their Claims Adjuster or Claims Adjustment department. A very small transit agency would likely have an insurer; a large enough one, an internal Claims department. I suppose on small claims it is possible for an agency to operate all on its own "in between" an insurance carrier and a claims department. I've just never heard of one where a board of directors sits around evaluating 200 "small claims" cases a year.
8) While I can understand that a little transit entity might not have the internal expertise available to know how to handle these things, it strikes me that the reference to 200 fake claims a year at $5,000 each -- $1 million a year in claims does not strike me as a "little" transit entity -- did not require in essence reinventing the wheel by filming a useless and in some ways misleading video in order to justify ... a Claims Adjuster!
And if this sounds cynical, perhaps that's what the transit agency needed in the first place without a lot of set decorating and videography -- a good, cynical claims adjuster. And had your bunch asked just about anyone in the transit or railroad industry, I'm fairly certain that they could have skipped the TV production and gone right to the solution.
There' s something in the narrative that just doesn't hang together very well for me; perhaps it really was just a lack of experience at this agency, or perhaps I should have been a claims adjuster.
If you read my post you would see that I said we would evaluate all claims and if they had merit we would quickly pay and offer our sincere apologies. If the case was without merit we would pursue all legal defenses at our disposal. Our transit agency operates in a small geographical area, not half of the country such as a class 1. Therefore we have to be aware of our public image in our geographical small operating area by showing compassion but also protecting the interests of our stakeholders and not waste our assets . See my post this morning about faked claims we recorded on video.
Almost all of the $5000 claims are filed in small claims court where the filing fees are about $50. There are no expert witness fees as some "bad" doctors work in concert with the lawyers and will certify almost anything. Soft tissue damage is very difficult to prove or disprove. It is a very low cost case to file in small claims and pay the doctor if he wins. For a total expenditure of $100-150 for filing fees and doctor's contingency fee it is easy money if it is settled out of court. Remember the lawyer takes about 1/3 plus costs.
As a consulting professional engineer i have done expert testimony in domestic and international tribunals. I ALWAYS was paid for time spent plus out of pocket expenses. I NEVER worked on a contingency basis as then you are concerned about the outcome and your impartiality is in question. With proper homework and preparation I have never been on the loosing side. I am glad to be retired as that track record was getting harder to maintain with time. Many cases I turned down because after preliminary analysis I deemed the case to be non winnable and told the client so after explaining my reasons. In the vast majority of the cases like this the client declined to go forward with the case. By keeping my presentation in the tribunals on a professional level I have left the court still friends with the opposing expert.
mudchickenps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say.
Murphy Siding No, it appears you'd have to be overlooking what he actually said about it. It seems to me, that ccltrains has already answered that question. Maybe ccltrains could tell us how many of the cases actually wnet to court, and how many were won or lost?
No, it appears you'd have to be overlooking what he actually said about it. It seems to me, that ccltrains has already answered that question. Maybe ccltrains could tell us how many of the cases actually wnet to court, and how many were won or lost?
There was something here that didn't make much sense to me. A policy of paying "meritorious claims," but not paying fraud claims? Who instituted, and why, a policy of previously paying non-meritorious claims? That really happened? Just pay ALL claims no matter what? I can see the problem that would arise, but that's not because I might be the brightest star in the constellation, its because that would be a sure-fire invitation for EVERYBODY to file a claim. That just doesn't make sense for any organization to have that policy in the first place.
It makes no sense. Ever.
I understand the costs of litigation. I've been involved in it most of my adult life. I've been an expert witness on a number of cases, including one of the largest rail-splitting derailment cases ever filed.
A completely "meritorious" $5,000 claim has a problem: the one-third contingency fee won't cover it. Firstly, the case requires an expert witness. For reasons I don't fully understand, those damages aren't recoverable even if you win. In my neck of the woods, here's the expert witness fee schedule for the kind of stuff I am involved in: 1) review records and issue an initial opinion: $7,500. Deposition charges: all travel, expenses, $1,000 an hour. Trial time, including travel, expenses, waiting, lunch: $1,500 an hour. If the expert actually has to go out and conduct any kind of testing of materials or scenarios, add $50,000-$100,000. This may overstate comparable costs of medical experts since there are more of them and more general literature is available.
On a contingency fee case, that all comes out of the attorney's pocket, payable from the client out of the settlement or paid judgment. On a $5,000 claim; that's not a case that can go to trial no matter how "meritorious." If there is anything to be "troubled" about, its how expensive the legal system is, and how that expense, all by itself, prevents the smaller, legitimate claims from ever being tried. In many ways, it could be argued, it is a system designed to protect the large players simply because the ultimate cost of entry is so high. You may or may not think that is a "plus" overall.
The McDonald's case struck me as one where the client had really not wanted to go to trial, no doubt because of her age, and so the attorneys really low-balled the settlement just to get it settled, and then got PO'd at McDonalds at the completely unreasonable rejection, and were willing to spend what must have been a half a million dollars at least to go after what they believed was an unconscionable corporate policy.
I assume it was a very large law firm that itself had the deep pockets to do so since, as I recall, the little old lady that was scalded was being driven through the drive-through by her grandson and it didn't sound like she had much money.
gabe My primary complaint associated with this post is bad mouthing juries who ultimately adjudicate the decision, judging all plaintiffs by a few cases, or defendants moaning when they made the wrong decision not to settle--did you know that McDonalds was offered $20,000 to settle the infamous $7,000,000 coffee thrid-degree burn case?
My primary complaint associated with this post is bad mouthing juries who ultimately adjudicate the decision, judging all plaintiffs by a few cases, or defendants moaning when they made the wrong decision not to settle--did you know that McDonalds was offered $20,000 to settle the infamous $7,000,000 coffee thrid-degree burn case?
Good point!
And I think that underscores what happens when corporations of any type place themselves in the position of forcing someone to go to court because, unfortunately, they made a decision that it was such a "small" case, that the defendant could not afford to take it to trial.
I have read about the McDonald's case and was appalled. McDonald's had adopted this policy of "only pay the meritorious" cases, but a review had shown that the policy had been applied so broadly that their own internal standard of "meritorious" meant that they had made two conclusions: 1) McDonald's would settle only if there was no way that McDonald's could win and 2) the damages were large enough to justify a defense lawyer taking the case. So, injured "little people" rarely got anything. Corporate policy of "only paying meritorious" cases, from what I have read, often morphs into a "only pay meritorious big cases because we know the little cases will never to be tried because the defendants will lose (under the contingency fee theory) even if they win."
The "Third Degree Burn" case really jumped out at me. That 80 year old lady had been scalded horribly over her entire genital area requiring multiple skin grafts.
McDonald's had had 750 similar claims of scaldings requiring medical care -- all of which they rejected as a matter of policy that deemed such claims as unmeritorious. Their own safety officer thought their coffee was served too hot. Their quality control manager felt it was justified because he believed that all McDonald's coffee drinkers purchased their coffee to take home and so McDonald's had to account for the cooling on the way home. That's what he testified to. The jury found it incredible.
I've only had one civil jury experience and one criminal jury experience, and I found the people serving on the civil jury to be surprisingly well informed but, more importantly, sincere about trying to follow the Judge's written instructions. There were differences of opinion, and some strong personalities, but wherever there was a clash of opinions, everyone went back to the instructions, and the quieter people tended to apply the logic of the instructions to the facts and voted accordingly.
It was a very positive experience for me to see what actually went on during jury deliberations. I will comment that the attorney for the corporation involved had an "attitude" that didn't create any goodwill for his company; and it really was "I'm an attorney for this big company, and we get these suits all the time" kind of attitude. "A real stuffed shirt," as one of the other jurors announced at the start of deliberations. Nobody liked him. It didn't affect the outcome -- the verdict was in favor of the company -- but I could see that in very close cases, the attitude or presentation of the attorney very likely could affect an outcome.
ICLand ccltrains: There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise. OK, and if a person did slip and fall, and asked for an honest sum to pay for their medical care, under your premise it is even less likely that a lawyer would actually take their case to trial. Within your theory of denying compensation to everyone, which presumes there is no such thing as a legitimate "slip and fall," the moral of the story is that it is morally justifiable to treat the fraud and the injured exactly alike? Really? That's OK? A societal "good"?
ccltrains: There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise.
There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise.
OK, and if a person did slip and fall, and asked for an honest sum to pay for their medical care, under your premise it is even less likely that a lawyer would actually take their case to trial.
Within your theory of denying compensation to everyone, which presumes there is no such thing as a legitimate "slip and fall," the moral of the story is that it is morally justifiable to treat the fraud and the injured exactly alike?
Really? That's OK? A societal "good"?
ccltrains I came up with idea of reviewing each case. If we were at fault apologize and write a check. If the case was a joke fight it in court.
I came up with idea of reviewing each case. If we were at fault apologize and write a check. If the case was a joke fight it in court.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I have already become more involved in this debate than I should, and I appreciate ICLand's sentiments--as well as his apparent fondness for my favorite line--but, I have absolutely no problem with ccltrains' transit program of taking most every case to trial.
Like a plaintiffs' decision to take a case to trial, a defendant has an absolute right to have a jury of its peers say, no, the defendant was not at fault. That is what the Court system is for. In my view, any plaintiffs' lawyer who takes a case, whether it be a $3000 slip or fall or a $300,000,000 class action has a moral obligation to be prepared to take the case to trial and advocate for his or her client if the case does not settle.
I will always respect a defednant's decision to vigorously oppose a case. It is my job to show the defendant that they miscalculated, and a jury's job to determine who made the better decision.
Gabe
ccltrains There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise.
There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise. They really are a problem and are giving the legal profession a bad name. One third of $5000 is a little over $1500 and if you file 6-10 of these a day at a cost of $50 each it can be big dollars for minimal work. Not the income from the big class action suits, but a good living.
As to employing a cleaner to prevent slip and falls we do this in a big way, but the next customer after the area was swept could spill a drink and bam-another slip and fall case.
We had a similar case on a bus. The bus was passing a dump truck and the mirrors of the bus and truck hit and rocked the bus slightly. The driver parked the bus and exited to talk to the truck driver. While he was off the bus one of our better citizens ran up and down the bus telling everyone to moan and say they were hurt. He looked around to find a good place to lay down and fake an injury. He did have an ambulance chaser file a law suit. Unknown to him and the lawyer this bus was being used for a test of our new video recording system. The lawyer came into the office to discuss the lawsuit and we pulled out the video. After looking at the video the lawyer withdrew from the case. Video does work.
We even staged a small accident with an empty bus in not the best area of town fully equipped with video. Six people hopped on the empty staged bus and claimed to be hurt. This one did not go to court.
ICLand says: This really doesn't fit the projected image of ruthless, greedy trial lawyers I keep reading about. Five thousand dollars sounds more like somebody's chiropractor bills and some padding for the lawyer to write the letters. Nobody actually ever slips and falls?
Lawyering is all about the art of the possible... and all about the bluff. The lawyer asks $5000 to make it cheaper for the railroad to settle than go to court. The lawyer doesn't want to go to court, that's hard work. He can get $5000 for writing a letter. Done. Why is that greedy? Because it's too easy.
The head of a shortline/tourist line is suing me for $10,000,000. Seems his company wants a nearby railway museum's rail line. He tried to take over the railway museum. I intervened to protect them, and he didn't much appreciate that, and he wants to deter me from doing it in the future. So he filed a nonsense lawsuit. The point is to drag me out of California into a state with no SLAPP laws, and force me to pay for lawyers while he represents himself for free. Anyway back to the point - the law is about the art of the possible. This is possible. This has generated many thousands of real dollars in real cost to me, and there's no end in sight, and he could bankrupt me simply by pressing on.
P.P.S. By the way, civil jurys usually have six rather than twelve jurors. One would think you would know how many sit in the box before bombastically calling them stupid.
Gabe: I have sat bon 2 civil juries in Georgia. There were 12 jurors. Here in Arizona where I live now there would be eight, same as a criminal jury.
Speaking of stupid......
Gabe: I have sat on 2 civil juries in Georgia. There were 12 jurors. Here in Arizona where I live now there would be eight, same as a criminal jury.
Gabe:
Gonna save that quote and put it up with the alledged quote of W.C. Fields about engineers. Must be at least "half" (it's that darned numbers thing again -shouldn't go there) considering the badgering surveyors get from title lawyers (at ALTA et al) about ceasing to use the term "legal description" and use "property description" even though the State Statutes frequently use the term.
NoBody Here But Us Chickens
mudchicken You rock GABE! (even though better than half of your tribe can't write a legal, er-um "property"description!)
You rock GABE!
Thanks, MC, the feeling is mutual.
But, are you certain that it is only half my tribe? I would be willing to bet quite seriously that more than 95% of lawyers could not write a property description.
I think the most accurate description of lawyers I have ever heard is: average-to-moderately intelligent but extremely motivated individuals who are scared to death of blood and numbers.
Property descriptions have numbers in them; therefore, lawyers are bad at them.
You can imagine my ironic horror when I was taking the bar when a property description was one of the questions. My father was a surveyor--if I failed because of that question that I had no idea how to answer, it would have been a horrible way to start a career bagging groceries. Fortunately for me, I did somewhat better at the other questions . . .
ccltrains Yes sueing is big business for the ambulance chasers. A while back I was on the Board of Directors of a large transit agency. We would get about 200 slip and fall suits a year usually asking for $5,000.
Yes sueing is big business for the ambulance chasers. A while back I was on the Board of Directors of a large transit agency. We would get about 200 slip and fall suits a year usually asking for $5,000.
This really doesn't fit the projected image of ruthless, greedy trial lawyers I keep reading about. Five thousand dollars sounds more like somebody's chiropractor bills and some padding for the lawyer to write the letters. Nobody actually ever slips and falls?
Huh, $150,000 per year just to fight the slip and fall suits suits. I wonder how much it would have cost you to hire some one for minumum wage/$25,000 per year to clear your darn floors of slipping hazards?
Sorry if I am sounding a little cranky. There was this ambulance on the way to work this morning, it was going a little too fast for me to catch, and now I have to rethink my ability ot buy that second Porsche I was looking at.
Yes sueing is big business for the ambulance chasers. A while back I was on the Board of Directors of a large transit agency. We would get about 200 slip and fall suits a year usually asking for $5,000. It was cheaper to pay than fight as the legal costs would be more than the proposed settlement and there was always the chance that you would loose. I came up with idea of reviewing each case. If we were at fault apologize and write a check. If the case was a joke fight it in court. We spent about $150,000 the first year fighting these junk cases but the word was soon out on the street that we were not an instant wealth agency. After a year our junk suits went from 200 to about 10 and these ten got the message the hard way.
To me this goes back to that old argument...just because one CAN doesn't do something mean one SHOULD do that thing. There's many areas where folks could debate this (trespassing, speeding, etc) but the topic here was about railroads getting sued and whether the person who committed the 'wrong' (trespassing, speeding, etc) COULD really sue and win. A page or two back someone stated that if you had a hazardous condition/whatever on something you owned then you were obligated to warn that the hazard existed (I think that was the gist of the statement). The gray area comes into play when something bad happens and someone (or 6 someones) get to decide whether or not your warnings were enough to have prevented a reasonable person from doing whatever happened. Given the apparent desperation of many of the folks in this land for some kind of fiscal windfall and (perhaps) the notion of "What can it really hurt" we are where we are today. I can't tell you when or why the mindset changed from folks taking responsibility for what they did and holding others blameless to being a society (seemingly) of "nothing's my fault-pay me". This isn't a forum (IMO) for psychology or studying the changes in socio-economic status relative to the propensity for litigation and I'm no expert in that field so I won't pretend to be.
All I think I can influence is my behavior by being as rational and careful as I can be. Thinking before 'leaping' so to speak when I decide to take a calculated risk. I try not to put myself in situations where my only options are bad and worse. If each of us did that and more folks thought that way....
Your mileage may vary.
Dan
ICLandSawtooth500So Im guessing you've never walked across the tracks at a place other than a grade crossing? Yes, you would be just guessing.
Sawtooth500So Im guessing you've never walked across the tracks at a place other than a grade crossing?
Yes, you would be just guessing.
ICLandSawtooth500The entire moral of the story is that in my opinion as long as others don't get hurt people should be able to do as they wish ... Well, that's exactly how people justify trespass on railroad property. And the way you think on this is exactly the problem in the first place.
Sawtooth500The entire moral of the story is that in my opinion as long as others don't get hurt people should be able to do as they wish ...
Well, that's exactly how people justify trespass on railroad property. And the way you think on this is exactly the problem in the first place.
Do a web search for railroad cases.
Type in a Railroad Name and either vs. or versus to find lawsuits new and old against railroads.
There have been many different types of cases against all the railroads for decades.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
CNW 6000So you're saying that if you have an "out" (ie safe place to exit readily available) it's still "OK" to violate the rules and pass those signs/warnings...because you think you can get off in time? IOW "Those rules don't apply because I can make it/I have a plan". That's what you're saying, right? I would think a more reasonable view would (should?) be "Signs say DANGER and NO TRESPASSING and are posted for a reason, I shouldn't go there...even if tempted". We may have to agree to disagree on this as I see it pretty much B&W here...you are either on the 'safe' side of the line or on the 'danger' side of the line. When I worked in the field of Aquatics I frequently audited Lifeguard staff for 'best practices' and I looked at that the same way: right or wrong. If you started making exceptions "just this time" especially where Safety is concerned that was a slippery slope related to assumption of risk...and at worst in the neighborhood of negligence. There isn't any 'in between' the way I see it. Just my $.02 I guess.
So you're saying that if you have an "out" (ie safe place to exit readily available) it's still "OK" to violate the rules and pass those signs/warnings...because you think you can get off in time? IOW "Those rules don't apply because I can make it/I have a plan". That's what you're saying, right? I would think a more reasonable view would (should?) be "Signs say DANGER and NO TRESPASSING and are posted for a reason, I shouldn't go there...even if tempted". We may have to agree to disagree on this as I see it pretty much B&W here...you are either on the 'safe' side of the line or on the 'danger' side of the line. When I worked in the field of Aquatics I frequently audited Lifeguard staff for 'best practices' and I looked at that the same way: right or wrong. If you started making exceptions "just this time" especially where Safety is concerned that was a slippery slope related to assumption of risk...and at worst in the neighborhood of negligence. There isn't any 'in between' the way I see it. Just my $.02 I guess.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.